I believe that Nagin is stupid enough to say something like this, but where and when did he actually say it? If we're taking aim at Chris Matthews for misquoting Laura Bush, it would be helpful to cite the source of Nagin's quote. (Interestingly, in an email exchange this morning, I was asked by the father of a friend of mine, who happens to be a retired editor of a newspaper in the Bay Area, if I have an example of a reporter of hard news who makes things up, or who doesn't check his sources, as I had charged as typical of today's journalists. This example of Matthews' misquote would be a good response.)
Posted on 01/16/2006 5:16:35 PM EST by Neville72
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Mayor Ray Nagin suggested that recent destruction from hurricanes Katrina, Rita and other natural disasters is a sign that "God is mad at America," and also mad at black communities for tearing themselves apart with violence and divisive politics.
"Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country," Nagin said as he and other city leaders commemorated Martin Luther King Day. "Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves."
Joking that he may appear to have "post-Katrina stress disorder," Nagin, who is black, talked of an imaginary conversation with the late civil rights leader. They "talked," he said, while he was thinking Monday about what to say at the ceremony outside City Hall to kick off a walking parade in King's honor.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
Dan Rather springs to mind. Another BIG LIE was the continued references by many in the MSM that George W. Bush had said (to justify our invasion) that an attack from Iraq was "imminent." Actually, what he did say, in his 2003 State of the Union Address, (link) was: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
The above is the exact opposite of saying a threat was imminent. He said that we can't afford to wait until the threat becomes imminent.
As a personal matter, I have given up sending my own scathing and informative missives in a vain attempt to persuade liberal friends acquaintances of the truth. I have systematically deleted all the libs from my email contact lists, and have forsaken relationships that go back as far as the third grade, which, in my case, was half a century ago. I have never, ever convinced a liberal to change his position, even when the fact set was totally in my favor. Hey--Rather and Mapes still won't admit that the National Guard documents were forgeries. Ignoring liberals, rather than fighting with them, was the best move I ever made.
The point you need to make to your father about untruthful reporters is not that they tell lies. They lie by not telling the entire story.....lying by omission. They also give distorted impression of events by refusing to put facts in context. Three examples of dishonest journalism can be found in the way the media handled the FEMA Katrina response stories, the NSA spying controversy, and the coverage of the Iraq war.
For instance, the media measures the success of the Iraq war by their daily casualty count...not progress being made. While constantly hyping the casualty rates of the Iraq conflict, they never, ever put it into the context of other conflicts. If Americans knew that tens of thousands of Americans died in one day in some battles during the civil war, or that we lost over 8,000 men just trying to recapture Iwo Jima, then 2,500 deaths suffered over nearly three years, while freeing 50 million people, begins to seem like a reasonable cost. without the context of deaths suffered in previous conflicts it is impossible for even a fair-minded person to determine the relative success or failure of a military action when casualties are used as the barometer for that success.
In the Katrina reporting one was left to believe that everything that was done poorly was the fault of FEMA and the federal government. During the first week of the media's assault on the Bush administration you were led to believe that Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin were little more than spectators. Their own responsibilities for planning, notification, and command and control resources was completely ignored by the press. Why?? Because it would negate the anger and animus they wanted to direct at the White House they loathe.
Not only did they lie by omission be refusing to hold Blanco and Nagin responsible for issues that were clearly their responsibility, they played the no-context card perfectly by not disclosing the time it took FEMA to respond to other conflicts. FEMA could have had the fastest response time to Katrina that the agency has ever had in an emergency, but how would anyone know if previous response times by FEMA were never revealed. The FEMA website clearly puts the responsibility for the first 72 hours on the local authorities... could just one network have shown a screen-shot of the website and illuminated this fact?
In the NSA warrantless "wiretapping" imbroglio you are left to believe that nothing like this has ever happened before. If you were born yesterday you would never know that Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and jailed, without charges, thousands of Americans who simply spoke badly about the president and the Emancipation proclomation.
If you were an alien that just landed on earth you would never have a clue that FDR imprisoned every japanese national and spied on Americans daily during WWII.
If you were a liberal and facts did not matter, then you would never remember the terms "echelon" or "carnivore". Both of these programs, that facilitated spying on American citizens by the Clinton administration, defended by jamie Gorelick as totally constitutional, are never mentioned by the press when reporting on the current NSA controversy.
This is how the media "tells the truth" without really telling the truth. They do it by omission of relevant facts and context. The absence of information is a tool to lie and the traditional mainstream media has perfected this technique to a science. They do every minute of every day. It is a shameful thing
Explain to your father that this is how they lie to us.
Freegards,
PresidentFelon